Racial Differences in Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening Follow-Up: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Impact of lung cancer screening on stage migration and mortality among the national Veterans Health Administration population with lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite randomized trials demonstrating a mortality benefit to low-dose computed tomography screening to detect lung cancer, uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been slow, and the benefits of screening remain unclear in clinical practice.

METHODS

This study aimed to assess the impact of screening among patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) health care system diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2018. Lung cancer stage at diagnosis, lung cancer-specific survival, and overall survival between patients with cancer who did and did not receive screening before diagnosis were evaluated. We used Cox regression modeling and inverse propensity weighting analyses with lead time bias adjustment to correlate LCS exposure with patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 57,919 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer in the VA system between 2011 and 2018, 2167 (3.9%) underwent screening before diagnosis. Patients with screening had higher rates of stage I diagnoses (52% vs. 27%; p ≤ .0001) compared to those who had no screening. Screened patients had improved 5-year overall survival rates (50.2% vs. 27.9%) and 5-year lung cancer-specific survival (59.0% vs. 29.7%) compared to unscreened patients. Among screening-eligible patients who underwent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment, screening resulted in substantial reductions in all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.92; p = .003) and lung-specific mortality (aHR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50-0.74; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

While LCS uptake remains limited, screening was associated with earlier stage diagnoses and improved survival. This large national study corroborates the value of LCS in clinical practice; efforts to widely adopt this vital intervention are needed.

Patient Lung Cancer Screening Decisions and Environmental and Psychosocial Factors

Importance

Screening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography is associated with reduced lung cancer-specific mortality, but uptake is low in the US; understanding how patients make decisions to engage with lung cancer screening is critical for increasing uptake. Prior research has focused on individual-level psychosocial factors, but environmental factors (eg, historical contexts that include experiencing racism) and modifying factors-those that can be changed to make it easier or harder to undergo screening-also likely affect screening decisions.

Objective

To investigate environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors influencing lung cancer screening decision-making and develop a conceptual framework depicting relationships between these factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multimethod qualitative study was conducted from December 2021 to June 2022 using virtual semistructured interviews and 4 focus groups (3-4 participants per group). All participants met US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening (ie, age 50-80 years, at least a 20 pack-year smoking history, and either currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years). Screening-eligible US participants were recruited using an online panel.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Key factors influencing screening decisions (eg, knowledge, beliefs, barriers, and facilitators) were the main outcome. A theory-informed, iterative inductive-deductive approach was applied to analyze data and develop a conceptual framework summarizing results.

Results

Among 34 total participants (interviews, 20 [59%]; focus groups, 14 [41%]), mean (SD) age was 59.1 (4.8) years and 20 (59%) identified as female. Half had a household income below $20 000 (17 [50%]). Participants emphasized historical and present-day racism as critical factors contributing to mistrust of health care practitioners and avoidance of medical procedures like screening. Participants reported that other factors, such as public transportation availability, also influenced decisions. Additionally, participants described psychosocial processes involved in decisions, such as perceived screening benefits, lung cancer risk appraisal, and fear of a cancer diagnosis or harmful encounters with practitioners. In addition, participants identified modifying factors (eg, insurance coverage) that could make receiving screening easier or harder.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this qualitative study of patient lung cancer screening decisions, environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors influenced screening decisions. The findings suggest that systems-level interventions, such as those that help practitioners understand and discuss patients' prior negative health care experiences, are needed to promote effective screening decision-making.

An alternating-intervention pilot trial on the impact of an informational handout on patient-reported outcomes and follow-up after lung cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality; however, poor understanding of results may impact patient experience and follow-up. We sought to determine whether an informational handout accompanying LCS results can improve patient-reported outcomes and adherence to follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective alternating intervention pilot trial of a handout to accompany LCS results delivery.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing LCS in a multisite program over a 6-month period received a mailing containing either: 1) a standardized form letter of LCS results (control) or 2) the LCS results letter and the handout (intervention).

INTERVENTION

A two-sided informational handout on commonly asked questions after LCS created through iterative mixed-methods evaluation with both LCS patients and providers.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes of 1)patient understanding of LCS results, 2)correct identification of next steps in screening, and 3)patient distress were measured through survey. Adherence to recommended follow-up after LCS was determined through chart review. Outcomes were compared between the intervention and control group using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

389 patients were eligible and enrolled with survey responses from 230 participants (59% response rate). We found no differences in understanding of results, identification of next steps in follow-up or distress but did find higher levels of knowledge and understanding on questions assessing individual components of LCS in the intervention group. Follow-up adherence was overall similar between the two arms, though was higher in the intervention group among those with positive findings (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in self-reported outcomes between the groups or overall follow-up adherence. Those receiving the intervention did report greater understanding and knowledge of key LCS components, and those with positive results had a higher rate of follow-up. This may represent a feasible component of a multi-level intervention to address knowledge and follow-up for LCS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05265897.

Association of patient and health care organization factors with incidental nodule guidelines adherence: A multi-system observational study

BACKGROUND

Health care organizations are increasingly developing systems to ensure patients with pulmonary nodules receive guideline-adherent care. Our goal was to determine patient and organization factors that are associated with radiologist adherence as well as clinician and patient concordance to 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines for incidental pulmonary nodule follow-up.

MATERIALS

Trained researchers abstracted data from the electronic health record from two Veterans Affairs health care systems for patients with incidental pulmonary nodules as identified by interpreting radiologists from 2008 to 2016.

METHODS

We classified radiology reports and patient follow-up into two categories. Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence was the agreement between the radiologist's recommendation in the computed tomography report and the 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines. Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance was agreement between patient follow-up and the guidelines. We calculated multivariable-adjusted predicted probabilities for factors associated with Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence and Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance.

RESULTS

Among 3150 patients, 69% of radiologist recommendations were adherent to 2005 Fleischner guidelines, 4% were more aggressive, and 27% recommended less aggressive follow-up. Overall, only 48% of patients underwent follow-up concordant with 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines, 37% had less aggressive follow-up, and 15% had more aggressive follow-up. Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence was associated with Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance with evidence for effect modification by health care system.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians and patients seem to follow radiologists' recommendations but often do not obtain concordant follow-up, likely due to downstream differential processes in each health care system. Health care organizations need to develop comprehensive and rigorous tools to ensure high levels of appropriate follow-up for patients with pulmonary nodules.

Multilevel approaches to address disparities in lung cancer screening: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Low-dose computed tomography (lung cancer screening) can reduce lung cancer-specific mortality by 20-24%. Based on this evidence, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual lung cancer screening for asymptomatic high-risk individuals. Despite this recommendation, utilization is low (3-20%). Lung cancer screening may be particularly beneficial for African American patients because they are more likely to have advanced disease, lower survival, and lower screening rates compared to White individuals. Evidence points to multilevel approaches that simultaneously address multiple determinants to increase screening rates and decrease lung cancer burden in minoritized populations. This study will test the effects of provider- and patient-level strategies for promoting equitable lung cancer screening utilization.

METHODS

Guided by the Health Disparities Research Framework and the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model, we will conduct a quasi-experimental study with four primary care clinics within a large health system (MedStar Health). Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening, defined as 50-80 years old, ≥ 20 pack-years, currently smoking, or quit < 15 years, no history of lung cancer, who have an appointment scheduled with their provider, and who are non-adherent to screening will be identified via the EHR, contacted, and enrolled (N = 184 for implementation clinics, N = 184 for comparison clinics; total N = 368). Provider participants will include those practicing at the partner clinics (N = 26). To increase provider-prompted discussions about lung screening, an electronic health record (EHR) clinician reminder will be sent to providers prior to scheduled visits with the screening-eligible participants. To increase patient-level knowledge and patient activation about screening, an inreach specialist will conduct a pre-visit phone-based educational session with participants. Patient participants will be assessed at baseline and 1-week post-visit to measure provider-patient discussion, screening intentions, and knowledge. Screening referrals and screening completion rates will be assessed via the EHR at 6 months. We will use mixed methods and multilevel assessments of patients and providers to evaluate the implementation outcomes (adoption, feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity).

DISCUSSION

The study will inform future work designed to measure the independent and overlapping contributions of the multilevel implementation strategies to advance equity in lung screening rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04675476. Registered December 19, 2020.

Persistent racial disparities in refusal of resection in non-small cell lung cancer patients at high-volume and Black-serving institutions

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the standard of care for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Black patients have higher surgical refusal rates than White patients. We evaluated factors associated with the refusal of resection and subsequent non-small cell lung cancer outcomes.

METHODS

We identified patients with non-small cell lung cancer stages IA to IIIA eligible for surgical resection (lobectomy or pneumonectomy) listed between 2004 and 2017 in the National Cancer Database. We stratified hospitals by the proportion of Black patients served and lung cancer resection volume. We used multivariable regression models to identify factors associated with refusal of resection and assessed 5-year mortality using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard modeling.

RESULTS

Of 221,396 patients identified, 7,753 (3.5%) refused surgery. Black race was associated with increased refusal (adjusted odds ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.90-2.22). Compared to White race, Black race was associated with increased refusal across the highest (adjusted odds ratio 2.29, 95% confidence interval 1.94-2.54), intermediate (adjusted odds ratio 2.05, 95% confidence interval 1.78-2.37), and lowest (adjusted odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.58-1.99) volume tertiles. Similarly, Black race was associated with increased refusal across the highest (adjusted odds ratio 1.97, 95% confidence interval 1.78-2.17), intermediate (adjusted odds ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval 1.80-2.40), and lowest (adjusted odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.13-2.06) Black-serving tertiles. However, surgical resection yielded similar 5-year survival for Black and White patients.

CONCLUSION

Racial disparities in non-small cell lung cancer surgery refusal persist regardless of hospital volume or proportion of Black patients served. These findings suggest that a better understanding of patient and patient-provider level interventions could facilitate a better understanding of treatment decision-making.

The Impact of Downstream Procedures on Lung Cancer Screening Adherence

OBJECTIVE

(1) Evaluate downstream procedures after lung cancer screening (LCS), including imaging and invasive procedures, in screened individuals without screen-detected lung cancer. (2) Determine the association between repeat LCS and downstream procedures and patient characteristics.

METHODS

Individuals receiving LCS between January 1, 2015, and November 30, 2020, from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database were included. Individuals with lung cancer after LCS were excluded. We determined frequency and costs of downstream procedures after LCS, including diagnostic imaging (chest CT, PET, or CT using fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose imaging) and invasive procedures (bronchoscopy, needle biopsy, thoracic surgery). A generalized estimating equation was used to model repeat LCS as a function of downstream procedures and patient characteristics. The primary outcome was repeat screening within 1 year of index LCS, and a secondary analysis evaluated the outcome of repeat screening with 2 years of index LCS.

RESULTS

In all, 23,640 individuals receiving 30,521 LCS examinations were included in the primary analysis; 17.7% of LCS examinations (5,414 of 30,521) prompted downstream testing, with chest CT within 4 months being most common (9.1%, 2,769 of 30,521). At multivariable analysis adjusted for patient characteristics, the occurrence of a downstream diagnostic imaging test or invasive procedure was associated with a decreased likelihood of repeat annual LCS (adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.38, 0.34-0.44; adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.75, 0.63-0.90, respectively).

DISCUSSION

Downstream imaging and invasive procedures after LCS are potential barriers to LCS adherence. Efforts to reduce false-positives at LCS and reduce patient costs from downstream procedures are likely necessary to ensure that downstream workup after LCS does not discourage screening adherence.

Lung cancer screening adherence among people living with and without HIV: An analysis of an integrated health system in Florida, United States (2012-2021)

Although lung cancer is a leading cause of death among people living with HIV (PLWH), limited research exists characterizing real-world lung cancer screening adherence among PLWH. Our objective was to compare low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) adherence among PLWH to those without HIV treated at one integrated health system. Using the University of Florida's Health Integrated Data Repository (01/01/2012-10/31/2021), we identified PLWH with at least one LDCT procedure, using Current Procedural Terminology codes(S8032/G0297/71271). Lung cancer screening adherence was defined as a second LDCT based on the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS®). Lung-RADS categories were extracted from radiology reports using a natural language processing system. PLWH were matched with 4 randomly selected HIV-negative patients based on (+/- 1 year) age, Lung-RADS category, and calendar year. Seventy-three PLWH and 292 matched HIV-negative adults with at least one LDCT were identified. PLWH were more likely to be male (66% vs.52%,p < 0.04), non-Hispanic Black (53% vs.23%,p < 0.001), and live in an area of high poverty (45% vs.31%,p < 0.001). PLWH were more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer after first LDCT (8% vs.0%,p < 0.001). Seventeen percent of HIV-negative and 12% of PLWH were adherent to LDCT screenings. Only 25% of PLWH diagnosed with category 4A were adherent compared to 44% of HIV-negative. On multivariable analyses, those with older age (66-80 vs.50-64 years) and with either Medicaid, charity-based, or other government insurance (vs. Medicare) were less likely to be adherent to LDCT screenings. PLWH may have poorer adherence to LDCT compared to their HIV-negative counterparts.

Timely adherence to follow-up after high-risk lung cancer screenings

OBJECTIVE

To achieve the lung cancer screening (LCS) mortality benefit in clinical trials, timely, real-world follow-up of abnormal test results is necessary. Presently, annual LCS rates are lower than in trials, and adherence to follow-up after suspicious findings has not been well studied. This study examined timely adherence to follow-up recommendations after positive low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screenings.

METHODS

This retrospective study included individuals from two academic primary care practices in New York City who met United States Preventative Services Task Force LCS eligibility and had a positive LDCT scan between 2013 and 2020. They were recommended for shorter interval follow-up repeat computed tomography (CT), CT biopsy, or positron emission tomography/CT. Adherence was completion of the prescribed imaging by 15 days after the recommended 7-, 30-, and 90-day follow-up and by 30 days after the 180-day recommended follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 106 individuals with a positive LDCT scan, 64 (60%) were adherent to follow-up recommendations. Adherence was 72%, 63%, and 42% for recommended follow-ups of 30, 90, and 180 days, respectively. Being male was a predictor of a lower adherence rate. Among 23 individuals newly diagnosed with lung cancer after a positive LDCT scan, 83% were adherent to follow-up testing and 82% of cancers were Stage 1A or limited stage.

CONCLUSIONS

There was variable adherence to the LCS follow-up recommendations despite positive screening CT, suggesting that even in a well-established screening program there may not be an efficient, systematic approach for follow-up. The delays in repeat testing potentially undermine the benefits of early detection.

Impact of low-dose computed tomography screening on lung cancer incidence and outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review findings from clinical trials of lung cancer screening (LCS), assess contemporary issues with implementation in clinical practice, and review emerging strategies to increase the uptake and efficiency of LCS.

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2013, the USPSTF recommended annual screening for individuals aged 55-80 years and currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years based on reduced mortality from lung cancer with annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. Subsequent trials have demonstrated similar mortality outcomes in individuals with lower pack-year smoking histories. These findings, coupled with evidence for disparities in screening eligibility by race, resulted in updated guidelines by USPSTF to broaden eligibility criteria for screening. Despite this body of evidence, implementation in the United States has been suboptimal with fewer than 20% of eligible individuals receiving a screen. Barriers to efficient implementation are multifactorial and include patient, clinician, and system-level factors.

SUMMARY

Multiple randomized trials have established that annual LCS reduces mortality from lung cancer; however, several areas of uncertainty exist on the effectiveness of annual LDCT. Ongoing research is examining approaches to improve the uptake and efficiency of LCS, such as the use of risk-prediction models and biomarkers for identification of high-risk individuals.

Health Disparities: Interventions for Pulmonary Disease - A Narrative Review

There is expansive literature documenting the presence of health disparities, but there are disproportionately few studies describing interventions to reduce disparity. In this narrative review, we categorize interventions to reduce health disparity in pulmonary disease within the US health care system to support future initiatives to reduce disparity. We identified 211 articles describing interventions to reduce disparity in pulmonary disease related to race, income, or sex. We grouped the studies into the following four categories: biologic, educational, behavioral, and structural. We identified the following five main themes: (1) there were few interventional trials compared with the breadth of studies describing health disparities, and trials involving patients with asthma who were Black, low income, and living in an urban setting were overrepresented; (2) race or socioeconomic status was not an effective marker of individual pharmacologic treatment response; (3) telehealth enabled scaling of care, but more work is needed to understand how to leverage telehealth to improve outcomes in marginalized communities; (4) future interventions must explicitly target societal drivers of disparity, rather than focusing on individual behavior alone; and (5) individual interventions will only be maximally effective when specifically tailored to local needs. Much work has been done to catalog health disparities in pulmonary disease. Notable gaps in the identified literature include few interventional trials, the need for research in diseases outside of asthma, the need for high quality effectiveness trials, and an understanding of how to implement proven interventions balancing fidelity to the original protocol and the need to adapt to local barriers to care.

Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries.

Disparity and Diversity in NSCLC Imaging and Genomics: Evaluation of a Mature, Multicenter Database

Lung cancer remains the leading cancer-related death across North America. Imaging is fundamental. Recently, healthcare disparities came into research focus. Our aim was to explore disparity from an imaging, genetic, and outcome perspective. We utilized the AACR Project GENIE Biopharma Consortium (BPC) dataset v 1.1 to build a collated NSCLC dataset. Descriptive and analytical statistics were applied according to data characteristics. From 1849 patients, mean age was 64.4 y (±10.5), 58% (n = 1065) were female, 23% (n = 419) never smoked, 84% (n = 1545) were of white race, and 57% (n = 1052) were < stage III. No difference (p > 0.05) was found for baseline imaging by race. White race showed higher 3-month surveillance imaging (p = 0.048) and a baseline stage < IV (OR 0.61). KRAS (33.3 vs. 17.9%), STK11 (14.8 vs. 7.3%), and KEAP1 (13.3 vs. 5.3%) mutations were predominant among white patients while EGFR mutation (19.2 vs. 44.1%) was less predominant. Mutations in TP53 or KEAP1 had worse PFS and OS. The latter was also reduced in STK11, KRAS + STK11, and KRAS + KEAP1 mutations. Meanwhile, EGFR mutation had increased OS. Multivariate analysis showed that progression on imaging at 3 or 6 months (HR 1.69 and 1.43, respectively), TP53 (HR 1.37) and KRAS (HR 1.26) had lower OS while EGFR and LRP1B (HR 0.69 and 0.39, respectively) had higher OS. No racial disparity at baseline imaging was observed. Higher initial stages among non-white patients might reflect inequalities in accessing healthcare. However, race wasn’t associated to OS. Finally, progression in imaging at 3 or 6 months showed the higher hazard ratios for death.

Racial, Ethnic, and Rural Disparities in US Veteran COVID-19 Vaccine Rates

Background

Race, ethnicity, and rurality-related disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine uptake have been documented in the United States (US).

Objective

We determined whether these disparities existed among patients at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the largest healthcare system in the US.

Design Settings Participants Measurements

Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse data, we included 5,871,438 patients (9.4% women) with at least one primary care visit in 2019 in a retrospective cohort study. Each patient was assigned a single race/ethnicity, which were mutually exclusive, self-reported categories. Rurality was based on 2019 home address at the zip code level. Our primary outcome was time-to-first COVID-19 vaccination between December 15, 2020-June 15, 2021. Additional covariates included age (in years), sex, geographic region (North Atlantic, Midwest, Southeast, Pacific, Continental), smoking status (current, former, never), Charlson Comorbidity Index (based on ≥1 inpatient or two outpatient ICD codes), service connection (any/none, using standardized VA-cutoffs for disability compensation), and influenza vaccination in 2019-2020 (yes/no).

Results

Compared with unvaccinated patients, those vaccinated (n=3,238,532; 55.2%) were older (mean age in years vaccinated=66.3, (standard deviation=14.4) vs. unvaccinated=57.7, (18.0), p<.0001)). They were more likely to identify as Black (18.2% vs. 16.1%, p<.0001), Hispanic (7.0% vs. 6.6% p<.0001), or Asian American/Pacific Islander (AA/PI) (2.0% vs. 1.7%, P<.0001). In addition, they were more likely to reside in urban settings (68.0% vs. 62.8, p<.0001). Relative to non-Hispanic White urban Veterans, the reference group for race/ethnicity-urban/rural hazard ratios reported, all urban race/ethnicity groups were associated with increased likelihood for vaccination except American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) groups. Urban Black groups were 12% more likely (Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.12 [CI 1.12-1.13]) and rural Black groups were 6% more likely to receive a first vaccination (HR=1.06 [1.05-1.06]) relative to white urban groups. Urban Hispanic, AA/PI and Mixed groups were more likely to receive vaccination while rural members of these groups were less likely (Hispanic: Urban HR=1.17 [1.16-1.18], Rural HR=0.98 [0.97-0.99]; AA/PI: Urban HR=1.22 [1.21-1.23], Rural HR=0.86 [0.84-0.88]). Rural White Veterans were 21% less likely to receive an initial vaccine compared with urban White Veterans (HR=0.79 [0.78-0.79]). AI/AN groups were less likely to receive vaccination regardless of rurality: Urban HR=0.93 [0.91-0.95]; AI/AN-Rural HR=0.76 [0.74-0.78].

Conclusions

Urban Black, Hispanic, and AA/PI Veterans were more likely than their urban White counterparts to receive a first vaccination; all rural race/ethnicity groups except Black patients had lower likelihood for vaccination compared with urban White patients. A better understanding of disparities and rural outreach will inform equitable vaccine distribution.

Research Priorities for Interventions to Address Health Disparities in Lung Nodule Management: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Lung nodules are common incidental findings, and timely evaluation is critical to ensure diagnosis of localized-stage and potentially curable lung cancers. Rates of guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluation are low, and the risk of delayed evaluation is higher for minoritized groups. Objectives: To summarize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and prioritize research questions related to interventions to reduce disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee was convened to review the evidence and identify key knowledge gaps in four domains: 1) research methodology, 2) patient-level interventions, 3) clinician-level interventions, and 4) health system-level interventions. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify research priorities. Results: Key knowledge gaps included 1) a lack of standardized approaches to identify factors associated with lung nodule management disparities, 2) limited data evaluating the role of social determinants of health on disparities in lung nodule management, 3) a lack of certainty regarding the optimal strategy to improve patient-clinician communication and information transmission and/or retention, and 4) a paucity of information on the impact of patient navigators and culturally trained multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions: This statement outlines a research agenda intended to stimulate high-impact studies of interventions to mitigate disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Research questions were prioritized around the following domains: 1) need for methodologic guidelines for conducting research related to disparities in nodule management, 2) evaluating how social determinants of health influence lung nodule evaluation, 3) studying approaches to improve patient-clinician communication, and 4) evaluating the utility of patient navigators and culturally enriched multidisciplinary teams to reduce disparities.

Lung cancer in the emergency department

Background

Though decreasing in incidence and mortality in the USA, lung cancer remains the deadliest of all cancers. For a significant number of patients, the emergency department (ED) provides the first pivotal step in lung cancer prevention, diagnosis, and management. As screening recommendations and treatments advance, ED providers must stay up-to-date with the latest lung cancer recommendations. The purpose of this review is to identify the many ways that emergency providers may intersect with the disease spectrum of lung cancer and provide an updated array of knowledge regarding detection, management, complications, and interdisciplinary care.

Findings

Lung cancer, encompassing 10-12% of cancer-related emergency department visits and a 66% admission rate, is the most fatal malignancy in both men and women. Most patients presenting to the ED have not seen a primary care provider or undergone screening. Ultimately, half of those with a new lung cancer diagnosis in the ED die within 1 year. Incidental findings on computed tomography are mostly benign, but emergency staff must be aware of the factors that make them high risk. Radiologic presentations range from asymptomatic nodules to diffuse metastatic lesions with predominately pulmonary symptoms, and some may present with extra-thoracic manifestations including neurologic. The short-term prognosis for ED lung cancer patients is worse than that of other malignancies. Screening offers new hope through earlier diagnosis but is underutilized which may be due to racial and socioeconomic disparities. New treatments provide optimism but lead to new complications, some long-term. Multidisciplinary care is essential, and emergency medicine is responsible for the disposition of patients to the appropriate specialists at inpatient and outpatient centers.

Conclusion

ED providers are intimately involved in all aspects of lung cancer care. Risk factor modification and referral for lung cancer screening are opportunities to further enhance patient care. In addition, with the advent of newer cancer therapies, ED providers must stay vigilant and up-to-date with all aspects of lung cancer including disparities, staging, symptoms of disease, prognosis, treatment, and therapy-related complications.

Interventions to improve lung cancer screening among racially and ethnically minoritized groups: A scoping review

Lung cancer screening (LCS) decreases lung cancer related mortality among high-risk people who smoke cigarettes and has been endorsed by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) since 2013. However, adoption of LCS has been limited, and disparities in LCS among racially and ethnically minoritized groups have become apparent. While recommendations to improve disparities in LCS have been made, there is a lack of information on how these recommendations have been implemented and their relative effectiveness in improving screening disparities. This scoping review addresses this knowledge gap by examining interventions that have been implemented to improve LCS among racially and ethnically minoritized groups in the United States. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO), and Scopus (via Elsevier), for articles from the period 1 January 2010 through 22 October 2021 was completed. Out of 17,045 references screened, only 11 studies describing an intervention to improve disparities in LCS were identified, underscoring the dearth of data on established interventions. The interventions discussed could be categorized into three groups -- patient level (n = 3), clinic/institution level (n = 3), and community level (n = 5) interventions. Of those studies reporting effectiveness data (n = 8), there was substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and their relative effectiveness. We found that interventions which streamlined the LCS process at the level of a single clinic or institution were the most effective in improving LCS. Community-level interventions that focused on engagement and education had the greatest potential to target racially and ethnically minoritized groups. Our study underscores the need for more robust research on addressing barriers to LCS by identifying effective patient, clinic, and community-level interventions to improve LCS disparities and the need for potential standardization of intervention effectiveness outcomes.

Repeat Annual Lung Cancer Screening After Baseline Screening Among Screen-Negative Individuals: No-Cost Coverage Is Not Enough

PURPOSE

Adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) is central to effective screening. The authors evaluated the likelihood of repeat annual LCS in a national commercially insured population and associations with individual characteristics, insurance characteristics, and annual out-of-pocket cost (OOPC) burden.

METHODS

Using claims data from an employer-insured population (Clinformatics), individuals 55 to 80 years of age undergoing LCS between January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2019, with "negative" LCS were included. Repeat LCS was defined as low-dose chest CT occurring 10 to 15 months after the preceding LCS. Analysis was conducted over a 6-year period. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between repeat LCS and individual characteristics, insurance characteristics, and total OOPC incurred by the individual in the year of the index LCS, even if unrelated to LCS.

RESULTS

Of 14,943 individuals with negative LCS, 4,561 (30.5%) underwent repeat LCS. Likelihood of repeat LCS was decreased for men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.97), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97), and indemnity insurance plans (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.53). Relative to New England, individuals in nearly all US geographic regions were less likely to undergo repeat LCS. Finally, individuals with total OOPC in the highest two quartiles were less likely to undergo repeat LCS (aOR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.92] for OOPC >$1,069.02-$2,475.09 vs $0-$351.82; aOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.68-0.82] for OOPC >$2,475.09 vs $0-$351.82).

CONCLUSIONS

Although federal policies facilitate LCS without cost sharing, individuals incurring high OOPC, even when unrelated to LCS, are less likely to undergo repeat LCS. Future policy design should consider the permeative burden of OOPC across the health continuum on preventive services use.

Stage Migration and Lung Cancer Incidence After Initiation of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening

INTRODUCTION

Despite evidence from clinical trials of favorable shifts in cancer stage and improvements in lung cancer-specific mortality, the effectiveness of lung cancer screening (LCS) in clinical practice has not been clearly revealed.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter cohort study of patients diagnosed with a primary lung cancer between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2019, at one of four U.S. health care systems. The primary outcome variables were cancer stage distribution and annual age-adjusted lung cancer incidence. The primary exposure variable was receipt of at least one low-dose computed tomography for LCS before cancer diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 3678 individuals were diagnosed with an incident lung cancer during the study period; 404 (11%) of these patients were diagnosed after initiation of LCS. As screening volume increased, the proportion of patients diagnosed with lung cancer after LCS initiation also rose from 0% in the first quartile of 2014 to 20% in the third quartile of 2019. LCS did not result in a significant change in the overall incidence of lung cancer (average annual percentage change [AAPC]: -0.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): -4.7 to 3.2]) between 2014 and 2018. Stage-specific incidence rates increased for stage I cancer (AAPC = 8.0 [95% CI: 0.8-15.7]) and declined for stage IV disease (AAPC = -6.0 [95% CI: -11.2 to -0.5]).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of LCS at four diverse health care systems has resulted in a favorable shift to a higher incidence of stage I cancer with an associated decline in stage IV disease. Overall lung cancer incidence did not increase, suggesting a limited impact of overdiagnosis.

Receipt of Recommended Follow-up Care After a Positive Lung Cancer Screening Examination

Importance

Maximizing benefits of lung cancer screening requires timely follow-up after a positive screening test. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommends testing and follow-up timing based on the screening result.

Objective

To determine rates of and factors associated with recommended follow-up after a positive lung cancer screening examination by Lung-RADS category.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study of lung cancer screening examinations performed from January 1, 2015, through July 31, 2020, with follow-up through July 31, 2021, was conducted at 5 academic and community lung cancer screening sites in North Carolina. Participants included 685 adults with a positive screening examination, Lung-RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X. Statistical analysis was performed from December 2020 to March 2022.

Exposures

Individual age, race, sex, smoking exposure, year of lung cancer screening examination, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, body mass index, referring clinician specialty, rural or urban residence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Adherence, defined as receipt of recommended follow-up test or procedure after the positive screen per ACR Lung-RADS timeframes: 6 months for Lung-RADS 3 and 3 months for Lung-RADS 4A. For Lung-RADS 4B or 4X, adherence was defined as follow-up care within 4 weeks, as ACR Lung-RADS does not specify a timeframe.

Results

Among the 685 individuals included in this study who underwent lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, 416 (60.7%) were aged at least 65 years, 123 (18.0%) were Black, 562 (82.0%) were White, and 352 (51.4%) were male. Overall adherence to recommended follow-up was 42.6% (292 of 685) and varied by Lung-RADS category: Lung-RADS 3 = 30.0% (109 of 363), Lung-RADS 4A = 49.5% (96 of 194), Lung-RADS 4B or 4X = 68.0% (87 of 128). Extending the follow-up time increased adherence: Lung-RADS 3 = 68.6% (249 of 363) within 9 months, Lung-RADS 4A = 77.3% (150 of 194) within 5 months, and Lung-RADS 4B or 4X = 80.5% (103 of 128) within 62 days. For Lung-RADS 3, recommended follow-up was less likely among those currently smoking vs those who quit (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78). In Lung-RADS 4A, recommended follow-up was less likely in Black individuals vs White individuals (aOR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.86). For Lung-RADS 4B or 4X, recommended follow-up was more likely in female individuals vs male individuals (aOR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.09-7.28) and less likely in those currently smoking vs those who quit (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.80).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, adherence to recommended follow-up after a positive screening examination was low but improved among nodules with a higher suspicion of cancer and after extending the follow-up timeline. However, the association of extending the follow-up time of screen-detected nodules with outcomes at the population level, outside of a clinical trial, is unknown. These findings suggest that studies to understand why recommended follow-up is lower in Black individuals, male individuals, and individuals currently smoking are needed to develop strategies to improve adherence.

Racial Disparities in Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening and Recommended Follow-Up Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Rationale: Black patients receive recommended lung cancer screening (LCS) follow-up care less frequently than White patients, but it is unknown if this racial disparity persists across both decentralized and centralized LCS programs. Objectives: To determine adherence to American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommendations among individuals undergoing LCS at either decentralized or centralized programs and to evaluate the association of race with LCS adherence. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients receiving LCS at five heterogeneous U.S. healthcare systems. We calculated adherence to annual LCS among patients with a negative baseline screen (Lung-RADS 1 or 2) and recommended follow-up care among those with a positive baseline screen (Lung-RADS 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X) stratified by type of LCS program and evaluated the association between race and adherence using multivariable modified Poisson regression. Results: Of the 6,134 total individuals receiving LCS, 5,142 (83.8%) had negative baseline screens, and 992 (16.2%) had positive baseline screens. Adherence to both annual LCS (34.8% vs. 76.1%; P < 0.001) and recommended follow-up care (63.9% vs. 74.6%; P < 0.001) was lower at decentralized compared with centralized programs. Among individuals with negative baseline screens, a racial disparity in adherence was observed only at decentralized screening programs (interaction term, P < 0.001). At decentralized programs, Black race was associated with 27% reduced adherence to annual LCS (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.84), whereas at centralized programs, no effect by race was observed (aRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In contrast, among those with positive baseline screens, there was no significant difference by race for adherence to recommended follow-up care by type of LCS program (decentralized aRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.11; centralized aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93; interaction term, P = 0.176). Conclusions: In this large multicenter study of individuals screened for lung cancer, adherence to both annual LCS and recommended follow-up care was greater at centralized screening programs. Black patients were less likely to receive annual LCS than White patients at decentralized compared with centralized LCS programs. Our results highlight the need for further study of healthcare system-level mechanisms to optimize longitudinal LCS care.

The Chain of Adherence for Incidentally Detected Pulmonary Nodules after an Initial Radiologic Imaging Study: A Multisystem Observational Study

Rationale: Millions of people are diagnosed with incidental pulmonary nodules every year. Although most nodules are benign, it is universally recommended that all patients be assessed to determine appropriate follow-up and ensure that it is obtained. Objectives: To determine the degree of concordance and adherence to 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines among radiologists, clinicians, and patients at two Veterans Affairs healthcare systems with incidental nodule tracking systems. Methods: Trained researchers abstracted data from the electronic health records of patients with incidental pulmonary nodules as identified by interpreting radiologists from 2008 to 2016. We classified radiology reports and patient follow-up into three categories. Radiologist-Fleischner adherence was the agreement between the radiologist's recommendation in the computed tomography (CT) report and the 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines. Clinician/patient-Fleischner concordance was agreement between patient follow-up and the guidelines. Clinician/patient-radiologist adherence was agreement between the radiologist's recommendation and patient follow-up. We evaluated whether the recommendation or follow-up was more (e.g., sooner) or less (e.g., later) aggressive than recommended. Results: After exclusions, 4,586 patients with 7,408 imaging tests (n = 4,586 initial chest CT scans; n = 2,717 follow-up chest CT scans; n = 105 follow-up low-dose CT scans) were included. Among radiology reports that could be classified in terms of Fleischner Society guidelines (n = 3,150), 80% had nonmissing radiologist recommendations. Among those reports, radiologist-Fleischner adherence was 86.6%, with 4.8% more aggressive and 8.6% less aggressive. Among patients whose initial scans could be classified, clinician/patient-Fleischner concordance was 46.0%, 14.5% were more aggressive, and 39.5% were less aggressive. Clinician/patient-radiologist adherence was 54.3%. Veterans whose radiology reports were adherent to Fleischner Society guidelines had a substantially higher proportion of clinician/patient-Fleischner concordance: 52.0% concordance among radiologist-Fleischner adherent versus 11.6% concordance among radiologist-Fleischner nonadherent. Conclusions: In this multi-health system observational study of incidental pulmonary nodule follow-up, we found that radiologist adherence to 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines may be necessary but not sufficient. Our results highlight the many facets of care processes that must occur to achieve guideline-concordant care.

Patient Perspectives on Longitudinal Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) has mortality benefits for eligible participants; however, studies demonstrate low adherence to follow-up LCS.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are patients' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to adherence to annual LCS?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Forty participants enrolled in the University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance LCS program completed a demographic questionnaire and a semistructured interview based on the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases framework to determine attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to longitudinal LCS. Interviews were coded using principles of framework analysis to identify and compare themes between adherent and nonadherent participants.

RESULTS

The 40 participants underwent initial LCS in 2017 with negative results. Seventeen were adherent to follow-up annual LCS, whereas 23 were not. Seven overall themes emerged from qualitative analysis, which are summarized as follows: (1) screening experiences are positive and participants have positive attitudes toward screening; (2) provider recommendation is a motivator and key facilitator for most patients; (3) many patients are influenced by personal factors and symptoms and do not understand the importance of asymptomatic screening; (4) common barriers to longitudinal screening include cost, insurance coverage, accessibility, and other medical conditions; (5) patients have variable preferences about how they receive their screening results, and many have residual questions about their results and future screening; (6) reminders are an important facilitator of annual screening; and (7) most patients think a navigator would be beneficial to the screening process, with different aspects of navigation thought to be most helpful. Those who were not adherent more commonly reported individual barriers to screening, competing health concerns, and less provider communication.

INTERPRETATION

Key facilitators (eg, patient reminders, provider recommendations) may improve long-term screening behavior, and a number of barriers to the screening process could be addressed through patient navigation.

Lung Cancer Diagnosed Through Screening, Lung Nodule, and Neither Program: A Prospective Observational Study of the Detecting Early Lung Cancer (DELUGE) in the Mississippi Delta Cohort

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening saves lives, but implementation is challenging. We evaluated two approaches to early lung cancer detection-low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT) and program-based management of incidentally detected lung nodules.

METHODS

A prospective observational study enrolled patients in the early detection programs. For context, we compared them with patients managed in a Multidisciplinary Care Program. We compared clinical stage distribution, surgical resection rates, 3- and 5-year survival rates, and eligibility for LDCT screening of patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

RESULTS

From 2015 to May 2021, 22,886 patients were enrolled: 5,659 in LDCT, 15,461 in Lung Nodule, and 1,766 in Multidisciplinary Care. Of 150, 698, and 1,010 patients diagnosed with lung cancer in the respective programs, 61%, 60%, and 44% were diagnosed at clinical stage I or II, whereas 19%, 20%, and 29% were stage IV (P = .0005); 47%, 42%, and 32% had curative-intent surgery (P < .0001); aggregate 3-year overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 73 to 88) versus 64% (60 to 68) versus 49% (46 to 53); 5-year overall survival rates were 76% (67 to 87) versus 60% (56 to 65) versus 44% (40 to 48), respectively. Only 46% of 1,858 patients with lung cancer would have been deemed eligible for LDCT by US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 criteria, and 54% by 2021 criteria. Even if all eligible patients by USPSTF 2021 criteria had been enrolled into LDCT, the Nodule Program would have detected 20% of the stage I-II lung cancer in the entire cohort.

CONCLUSION

LDCT and Lung Nodule Programs are complementary, expanding access to early lung cancer detection and curative treatment to different-risk populations. Implementing Lung Nodule Programs may alleviate emerging disparities in access to early lung cancer detection.

Likelihood of Lung Cancer Screening by Poor Health Status and Race and Ethnicity in US Adults, 2017 to 2020

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) via low-dose chest computed tomography can prevent mortality through surgical resection of early-stage cancers, but it is unknown whether poor health is associated with screening. Though LCS may be associated with better outcomes for non-Hispanic Black individuals, it is unknown whether racial or ethnic disparities exist in LCS use.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether health status is associated with LCS and whether racial or ethnic disparities are associated with LCS independently of health status.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional, population-based study of community-dwelling US adults used data from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System annual surveys, 2017 to 2020. Participants were aged 55 to 79 years, with a less than 30 pack-year smoking history, and were current smokers or those who quit within 15 years. Data were analyzed from August to November 2021.

EXPOSURES

Self-reported health status and race and ethnicity.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Self-reported LCS in the last 12 months.

RESULTS

Of 14 550 individuals (7802 men [55.5%]; 7527 [55.0%] aged 65-79 years [percentages are weighted]), representing 3.68 million US residents, 17.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-18.9%) reported undergoing LCS. The prevalence of LCS was lower among non-Hispanic Black than non-Hispanic White individuals but not to a significant degree (12.0% [95% CI, 4.3%-19.7%] vs 17.5% [95% CI, 15.6%-19.5%]; P = .57). Health status was associated with LCS: 468 individuals in poor health vs 96 individuals in excellent health reported LCS (25.2% [95% CI, 20.6%-29.9%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 5.0%-10.3%]; P < .001), and those with difficulty climbing stairs were more likely to report LCS than those without this functional limitation. Adjusting for sociodemographic factors, functional status, and comorbidities, self-rated health status remained associated with LCS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 per each 1-step decline in health; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38), and non-Hispanic Black individuals were 53% less likely to report LCS than non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90). Results were robust in sensitivity analyses in which health was alternatively quantified as number of comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

LCS in the US is more common among those who may be less likely to benefit from screening because of poor underlying health. Furthermore, racial or ethnic disparities were evident after accounting for health status, with non-Hispanic Black individuals nearly half as likely as non-Hispanic White individuals to report LCS despite the potential for greater benefit of screening this population.